Controller misunderstanding of the NDB being OTS and issued a clearance for a localizer DME approach...

Attributes
ACN	375537
Time
Date	199707
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : grv airport : cbe
State Reference	MD
Altitude	msl bound lower : 5000 msl bound upper : 5000
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zob tower : hya
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival other enroute airway : zob
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 160 flight time total : 7300 flight time type : 1800
ASRS Report	375537
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : radar
Qualification	controller : radar
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

8 NM northeast of grantsville VOR flight was given clearance for the localizer DME runway 23 approach in cbe. As we were approaching the ADF (backed up by the 093 degree radial from grv), the ZOB controller told us that the ADF was notamed OTS. We mentioned to the controller that we had a strong signal and a good identify (we kept the identify at all time) and that we had no NOTAM on it. We had checked our NOTAMS and they only showed the pcls. I asked ZOB to confirm with the FSS as I was checking with company. The company confirmed my belief that we had no NOTAM for the ADF OTS. The ZOB controller came back and told us that the FSS confirmed that the 'beacon was OTS.' at this time we were intercepting the localizer and therefore didn't need the ADF anymore and I elected to continue the approach. I feel I should probably abort the approach as soon as I was told about the ADF being OTS, therefore I am sending this NASA form. I am also sending this form in the hope that it will alleviate some of the problems I am now going to list. If the localizer DME runway 23 requires the NDB to be able to be shot, it should include on the approach plate an 'ADF required' marking. The radial out of grantsville (093 degrees) should say 'to cbe NDB' so as not to confuse pilots that could think it was a feeder route to the fix on the localizer. The pilots and controllers should use proper phraseology beacon number ADF or NDB (upon checking with FSS radio after the flight I found out that the ADF was not NOTAM OTS but the 'rotating beacon was.' our company did not show it I guess because the rotating beacon had been fixed a few days prior). The controller should not clear a flight for an illegal approach. ZOB should have a way of giving vector for the approach or at least a way to identify holoe on their screen so as to allow flight to shoot the approach with the ADF OTS (even if it meant flying at a higher altitude until established outbound). The grv radial to holoe could be shown as a feeder route to allow flts to shoot the approach without the use of the ADF.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CTLR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE NDB BEING OTS AND ISSUED A CLRNC FOR A LOC DME APCH APPARENTLY REQUIRING THE NDB FOR NAV. RPTR HAD A STRONG NDB SIGNAL AND QUESTIONED THE CTLR AS TO THE STATUS OF THE NDB. CTLR CHKED WITH FSS AND CONFIRMED THE 'BEACON' WAS OTS. RPTR LEARNED AFTER LNDG THAT THE ARPT ROTATING BEACON HAD BEEN NOTAMED OTS.

Narrative: 8 NM NE OF GRANTSVILLE VOR FLT WAS GIVEN CLRNC FOR THE LOC DME RWY 23 APCH IN CBE. AS WE WERE APCHING THE ADF (BACKED UP BY THE 093 DEG RADIAL FROM GRV), THE ZOB CTLR TOLD US THAT THE ADF WAS NOTAMED OTS. WE MENTIONED TO THE CTLR THAT WE HAD A STRONG SIGNAL AND A GOOD IDENT (WE KEPT THE IDENT AT ALL TIME) AND THAT WE HAD NO NOTAM ON IT. WE HAD CHKED OUR NOTAMS AND THEY ONLY SHOWED THE PCLS. I ASKED ZOB TO CONFIRM WITH THE FSS AS I WAS CHKING WITH COMPANY. THE COMPANY CONFIRMED MY BELIEF THAT WE HAD NO NOTAM FOR THE ADF OTS. THE ZOB CTLR CAME BACK AND TOLD US THAT THE FSS CONFIRMED THAT THE 'BEACON WAS OTS.' AT THIS TIME WE WERE INTERCEPTING THE LOC AND THEREFORE DIDN'T NEED THE ADF ANYMORE AND I ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE APCH. I FEEL I SHOULD PROBABLY ABORT THE APCH AS SOON AS I WAS TOLD ABOUT THE ADF BEING OTS, THEREFORE I AM SENDING THIS NASA FORM. I AM ALSO SENDING THIS FORM IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE PROBS I AM NOW GOING TO LIST. IF THE LOC DME RWY 23 REQUIRES THE NDB TO BE ABLE TO BE SHOT, IT SHOULD INCLUDE ON THE APCH PLATE AN 'ADF REQUIRED' MARKING. THE RADIAL OUT OF GRANTSVILLE (093 DEGS) SHOULD SAY 'TO CBE NDB' SO AS NOT TO CONFUSE PLTS THAT COULD THINK IT WAS A FEEDER RTE TO THE FIX ON THE LOC. THE PLTS AND CTLRS SHOULD USE PROPER PHRASEOLOGY BEACON NUMBER ADF OR NDB (UPON CHKING WITH FSS RADIO AFTER THE FLT I FOUND OUT THAT THE ADF WAS NOT NOTAM OTS BUT THE 'ROTATING BEACON WAS.' OUR COMPANY DID NOT SHOW IT I GUESS BECAUSE THE ROTATING BEACON HAD BEEN FIXED A FEW DAYS PRIOR). THE CTLR SHOULD NOT CLR A FLT FOR AN ILLEGAL APCH. ZOB SHOULD HAVE A WAY OF GIVING VECTOR FOR THE APCH OR AT LEAST A WAY TO IDENT HOLOE ON THEIR SCREEN SO AS TO ALLOW FLT TO SHOOT THE APCH WITH THE ADF OTS (EVEN IF IT MEANT FLYING AT A HIGHER ALT UNTIL ESTABLISHED OUTBOUND). THE GRV RADIAL TO HOLOE COULD BE SHOWN AS A FEEDER RTE TO ALLOW FLTS TO SHOOT THE APCH WITHOUT THE USE OF THE ADF.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.